* Matthew Toseland [2008-05-19 12:58:24]:
> > > > > software on people's machines which we didn't write, and which for all
> > > > > we know could contain well hidden code to delete their hard disks on
> > > > > July 4th just for a laugh. If we install this software, WE ARE
> > > > > RESPONSIBL
* Matthew Toseland [2008-05-19 11:47:16]:
> On Sunday 18 May 2008 05:17, Florent Daigni?re wrote:
> > * Ian Clarke [2008-05-17 13:35:40]:
> >
> > > On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Matthew Toseland
> > > wrote:
> > > >> Exactly, which is why Thaw, Freemail, etc are the apps that will
> > > >>
On Monday 19 May 2008 12:33, Florent Daigni?re wrote:
> * Matthew Toseland [2008-05-19 11:47:16]:
>
> > On Sunday 18 May 2008 05:17, Florent Daigni?re wrote:
> > > * Ian Clarke [2008-05-17 13:35:40]:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Matthew Toseland
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> Exac
On Sunday 18 May 2008 05:17, Florent Daigni?re wrote:
> * Ian Clarke [2008-05-17 13:35:40]:
>
> > On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Matthew Toseland
> > wrote:
> > >> Exactly, which is why Thaw, Freemail, etc are the apps that will
> > >> motivate users to use Freenet. Only developers download t
* Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-05-19 12:58:24]:
> > > > > software on people's machines which we didn't write, and which for all
> > > > > we know could contain well hidden code to delete their hard disks on
> > > > > July 4th just for a laugh. If we install this software, WE ARE
>
* Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-05-19 11:47:16]:
> On Sunday 18 May 2008 05:17, Florent Daignière wrote:
> > * Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-05-17 13:35:40]:
> >
> > > On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Matthew Toseland
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >> Exactly, which is
* Ian Clarke [2008-05-17 13:35:40]:
> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Matthew Toseland
> wrote:
> >> Exactly, which is why Thaw, Freemail, etc are the apps that will
> >> motivate users to use Freenet. Only developers download the JRE, most
> >> users get it bundled with Java apps. The same w
* Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-05-17 13:35:40]:
> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Matthew Toseland
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Exactly, which is why Thaw, Freemail, etc are the apps that will
> >> motivate users to use Freenet. Only developers download the JRE, most
> >> users get
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
>> Exactly, which is why Thaw, Freemail, etc are the apps that will
>> motivate users to use Freenet. Only developers download the JRE, most
>> users get it bundled with Java apps. The same will be true of
>> Freenet, its a platform, most
On Friday 16 May 2008 22:09, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Colin Davis wrote:
> >> Why are you so obsessed with turning us into Sourceforge for Freenet
> >> apps? If we are successful there could be hundreds of apps, there is
> >> no reason for us to host all of them - tha
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Matthew Toseland
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Exactly, which is why Thaw, Freemail, etc are the apps that will
>> motivate users to use Freenet. Only developers download the JRE, most
>> users get it bundled with Java apps. The same will be true of
>> Freenet, it
On Friday 16 May 2008 22:09, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Colin Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Why are you so obsessed with turning us into Sourceforge for Freenet
> >> apps? If we are successful there could be hundreds of apps, there is
> >> no reason for us to hos
* Ian Clarke [2008-05-16 09:35:34]:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Florent Daigni?re
> wrote:
> >> But the same argument could be used in my Java analogy. Java has a
> >> far higher profile than many apps written in Java, but it doesn't
> >> follow that Java should bundle all of these apps.
On Friday 16 May 2008 15:35, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Florent Daigni?re
> wrote:
> >
> > What about fproxy; shall it be separated from fred too ? I think it
> > should be a plugin to the node.
>
> Fproxy is the means through which the node is configured, so it
> doesn'
* Ian Clarke [2008-05-16 09:21:10]:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Colin Davis wrote:
> > I can certainly understand where you're coming from, and agree that it
> > would be ideal, but I don't think that Freenet is ready to be promoted
> > by application development.. Currently, when Freenet
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Colin Davis wrote:
>> Why are you so obsessed with turning us into Sourceforge for Freenet
>> apps? If we are successful there could be hundreds of apps, there is
>> no reason for us to host all of them - that is rediculous. Let them
>> use sourceforge, or googl
On Friday 16 May 2008 15:21, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Colin Davis wrote:
> > I can certainly understand where you're coming from, and agree that it
> > would be ideal, but I don't think that Freenet is ready to be promoted
> > by application development.. Currently, whe
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Colin Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why are you so obsessed with turning us into Sourceforge for Freenet
>> apps? If we are successful there could be hundreds of apps, there is
>> no reason for us to host all of them - that is rediculous. Let them
>> use so
Okay, I'm modifying my compromise solution slightly here:
The installer itself should be lean and mean, and not bundle anything apart
from the smaller plugins.
At the end of the post-install wizard, we show the user a brief explanation of
each application, and ask them whether they want it. Tho
On Friday 16 May 2008 09:53, Jano wrote:
> Ian Clarke wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Michael Rogers
> > wrote:
> That would be a very valuable system, I just don't see what it's got to
> do with Freenet.
> >>>
> >>> Ummm, the fact that it would be a routable small world d
On Thursday 15 May 2008 23:09, Colin Davis wrote:
> Ian Clarke wrote:
> > I do agree that bundling can make user's lives easier, but it should
> > be >>client apps bundling Freenet<<, not the other way around.
> >
> > Ian.
> >
> >
>
> I can certainly understand where you're coming from, and agr
Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Florent Daigni?re
> wrote:
>
>>> But the same argument could be used in my Java analogy. Java has a
>>> far higher profile than many apps written in Java, but it doesn't
>>> follow that Java should bundle all of these apps.
>>>
>> Heh
> Why are you so obsessed with turning us into Sourceforge for Freenet
> apps? If we are successful there could be hundreds of apps, there is
> no reason for us to host all of them - that is rediculous. Let them
> use sourceforge, or google code, or set up their own website.
>
>
For the same
Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Michael Rogers
> wrote:
That would be a very valuable system, I just don't see what it's got to
do with Freenet.
>>>
>>> Ummm, the fact that it would be a routable small world darknet?
>>
>> That's an assumption, not a fact. As far as
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Florent Daigni?re
wrote:
>> But the same argument could be used in my Java analogy. Java has a
>> far higher profile than many apps written in Java, but it doesn't
>> follow that Java should bundle all of these apps.
>
> Heh, java has a frozen API... last time I c
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 6:35 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> Strongly agreed. From the point of view of a new user, or a journalist, FMS is
> part of Freenet. It is highly unlikely to get any independant publicity, even
> if we don't bundle it. All that happens if we don't bundle it is it doesn't
>
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Colin Davis wrote:
> I can certainly understand where you're coming from, and agree that it
> would be ideal, but I don't think that Freenet is ready to be promoted
> by application development.. Currently, when Freenet makes a new
> revision, that hits Slashdot, R
Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Florent Daignière
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> But the same argument could be used in my Java analogy. Java has a
>>> far higher profile than many apps written in Java, but it doesn't
>>> follow that Java should bundle all of these apps
> Why are you so obsessed with turning us into Sourceforge for Freenet
> apps? If we are successful there could be hundreds of apps, there is
> no reason for us to host all of them - that is rediculous. Let them
> use sourceforge, or google code, or set up their own website.
>
>
For the same
On Friday 16 May 2008 15:35, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Florent Daignière
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > What about fproxy; shall it be separated from fred too ? I think it
> > should be a plugin to the node.
>
> Fproxy is the means through which the node is configu
* Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-05-16 09:35:34]:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Florent Daignière
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> But the same argument could be used in my Java analogy. Java has a
> >> far higher profile than many apps written in Java, but it doesn't
> >> follow that
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Florent Daignière
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But the same argument could be used in my Java analogy. Java has a
>> far higher profile than many apps written in Java, but it doesn't
>> follow that Java should bundle all of these apps.
>
> Heh, java has a frozen A
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 6:35 AM, Matthew Toseland
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Strongly agreed. From the point of view of a new user, or a journalist, FMS is
> part of Freenet. It is highly unlikely to get any independant publicity, even
> if we don't bundle it. All that happens if we don't bundle
* Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-05-16 09:21:10]:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Colin Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I can certainly understand where you're coming from, and agree that it
> > would be ideal, but I don't think that Freenet is ready to be promoted
> > by application
On Friday 16 May 2008 15:21, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Colin Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I can certainly understand where you're coming from, and agree that it
> > would be ideal, but I don't think that Freenet is ready to be promoted
> > by application developme
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Colin Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can certainly understand where you're coming from, and agree that it
> would be ideal, but I don't think that Freenet is ready to be promoted
> by application development.. Currently, when Freenet makes a new
> revision, th
Okay, I'm modifying my compromise solution slightly here:
The installer itself should be lean and mean, and not bundle anything apart
from the smaller plugins.
At the end of the post-install wizard, we show the user a brief explanation of
each application, and ask them whether they want it. Tho
On Friday 16 May 2008 09:53, Jano wrote:
> Ian Clarke wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Michael Rogers
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That would be a very valuable system, I just don't see what it's got to
> do with Freenet.
> >>>
> >>> Ummm, the fact that it would be a rou
On Thursday 15 May 2008 23:09, Colin Davis wrote:
> Ian Clarke wrote:
> > I do agree that bundling can make user's lives easier, but it should
> > be >>client apps bundling Freenet<<, not the other way around.
> >
> > Ian.
> >
> >
>
> I can certainly understand where you're coming from, and agr
Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Michael Rogers
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That would be a very valuable system, I just don't see what it's got to
do with Freenet.
>>>
>>> Ummm, the fact that it would be a routable small world darknet?
>>
>> That's an assumption, no
Ian Clarke wrote:
> I do agree that bundling can make user's lives easier, but it should
> be >>client apps bundling Freenet<<, not the other way around.
>
> Ian.
>
>
I can certainly understand where you're coming from, and agree that it
would be ideal, but I don't think that Freenet is ready
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Michael Rogers
wrote:
>>> That would be a very valuable system, I just don't see what it's got to
>>> do with Freenet.
>>
>> Ummm, the fact that it would be a routable small world darknet?
>
> That's an assumption, not a fact. As far as I know there's little reaso
Ian Clarke wrote:
> I do agree that bundling can make user's lives easier, but it should
> be >>client apps bundling Freenet<<, not the other way around.
>
> Ian.
>
>
I can certainly understand where you're coming from, and agree that it
would be ideal, but I don't think that Freenet is ready
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Michael Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> That would be a very valuable system, I just don't see what it's got to
>>> do with Freenet.
>>
>> Ummm, the fact that it would be a routable small world darknet?
>
> That's an assumption, not a fact. As far as I know th
44 matches
Mail list logo
